Reviews in Clinical Gerontology

656 papers and 7.9k indexed citations i.

About

The 656 papers published in Reviews in Clinical Gerontology in the last decades have received a total of 7.9k indexed citations. Papers published in Reviews in Clinical Gerontology usually cover Psychiatry and Mental health (107 papers), General Health Professions (105 papers) and Physiology (74 papers) specifically the topics of Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research (48 papers), Frailty in Older Adults (44 papers) and Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes (37 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Reviews in Clinical Gerontology are Gill Windle, Dawn Brooker, Jenny de Jong Gierveld, Christina Victor, John Bond, Sasha Scambler, Ann Bowling, Kenneth Rockwood, Peter Crome and Rafael Samper‐Ternent.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in Reviews in Clinical Gerontology

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Reviews in Clinical Gerontology. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers published in Reviews in Clinical Gerontology.

Countries where authors publish in Reviews in Clinical Gerontology

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Reviews in Clinical Gerontology. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by papers published in Reviews in Clinical Gerontology with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Reviews in Clinical Gerontology more than expected).

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar’s output or impact.

Explore journals with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2025